Mayor to bring Measure L changes to council Wednesday

After being presented at Monday’s Measure L Advisory Committee meeting, a discussion and proposal regarding a “re-visioning” of the committee’s scope is set to be presented at Wednesday’s 6 p.m. special council meeting.The directive, drawn up by Mayor Dan Clark with review from City Attorney Keith Lemieux, underscores some of the duties expected of the Measure L committee.

Among the suggestions in the directive and material attached to Wednesday’s council meeting agenda is an indication that support from city staff might not be able to continue as currently maintained.

“The cost of this support is not a currently budgeted expense,” states the staff report attached to the agenda. “Because of further budget reductions, continued staff support at the current level must be evaluated.”

The staff report further notes that the documents were presented at Monday’s Measure L committee meeting and noting that “it prompted a great deal of discussion.”

Clark’s proposal has drawn sharp criticism from both committee members and the public over the future role the committee will play in reviewing Measure L revenue and expenditures.

An executive summary from Lemieux addressed to Interim City Manager Dennis Speer notes Measure L’s history and suggested guidance for the committee in the future.

“We conclude that the purpose of the Measure L Committee is to provide an annual report that documents whether or not money collected through Measure L was spent on the purposes identified by Measure L,” Lemieux states. “We conclude the purpose of the committee is not to review or examine other unrelated aspects of the City budget.”

The correspondence further notes that the committee serves at the city council’s leisure and that “the city council has authority to remove and replace individual members of the committee before the end of their term by a majority vote of the city council.”

The correspondence, in its overview of Measure L’s history, notes that the ballot measure was passed as a method to develop much needed revenue sources. The measure itself is a general sales tax fund that raised the city’s sales tax by 3/4 of a cent effective Oct. 1, 2012.

Lemieux notes that since the measure is a general tax fund, “there is no legal requirement that money collected through Measure L be spent on any specific government purpose.” Any requirement to spend money generated by the measure on police and streets is “self-imposed.”

Leading up the June 5 elections, the city council and many community members, including Clark, campaigned that the measure would only be used to fund public safety and streets.

The committee — then dubbed a Citizens Oversight Committee — was part of the package, to be established as a means to oversee and review expenditures and revenue in an advisory capacity.

Lemieux notes the concern the committee has in the reach of its scope, including its assumed role in reviewing the city budget to ensure normal funding is not stripped from police and roads and backfilled with Measure L money.

Page 2 of 2 - “In our opinion, this exceeds the scope of the Measure L advisory committee,” the executive summary states, noting that it was limited to making sure Measure L money was spent on promised services. “The committee’s authority is limited to preparing a report that addresses this question on an annual basis.”

Lemieux’s summary notes at the end that the comments were directed toward the committee members, not the public in general. It further states that all citizens, including committee members, had a right to review public records.

“However, in our opinion, it is inappropriate to use City resources to do so in the context of the Measure L Committee,” the summary states.

When the mayor’s directive was brought before the committee on Monday, it held similar language,

Some committee members objected.

Committee member Scott Garver, a Kern County deputy district attorney, noted that the language in the ordinance governing the Measure L committee establishes its members role as reviewing real time data as it comes in, not after the fact.

In addition, the committee raised the concern that limited staff support, provided once a quarter, would effectively hobble its role in overseeing the Measure L expenditures.

However, in a letter provided along with guidelines for the committee’s “re-visioning,” Mayor Clark apologized to the committee for a lack of guidance from the city leadership. Clark wrote that the “city did experience a serious lack of consistency in leadership,” citing the departure of a city manager and finance director and election of a new council and mayor.

“These management transitions have been counterproductive to a shared working relationship,” Clark wrote. “We want and need you to be successful, and to that end, we will do what is necessary to support your efforts.”

The largest question from the public during that meeting was whether the committee required guidance, pointing out the committee’s semi-independence granted them authority to review data as needed.

The staff report to be presented by Speer, the interim city manager, advises the council to consider discussion.

“In an effort to address these concerns and related issues, the Council is encouraged to consider and discuss the re-visioning document,” states the staff report.